It's honestly a shame that celebrities will have such a strong influence on the presidential campaign. Of course young people who idolize movie stars and musicians will vote for whoever their favorite celebrity supports, either subconsciously or blatantly obvious. Some even argue this theory in the last campaign, when Obama called for dozens of celebs in a music video commercial, causing a craze. This can't be contended. It did have an obvious effect. If a beloved film star is speaking of a politician, one will search for and know that politician's name.
Now, Donald Trump will completely alter the campaign with his TWITTER, of all things. He recently tweeted that said Obama "is delusional. Obama believes he is the fourth best President ever." He goes on to say Obama's ridiculous, never there, and isn't even a leader, in an interview on Fox recently this week. He even said he could be the worst.
Celebrities like Donald Trump should allow common citizens to make their own opinions of candidates based off of the candidates' information and campaigns. It is unjust to allow Trump to force his bias on others; that's just what he's doing.
watch this
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Clinton Reliving His Glory Days...smh
Even the liberals' beloved Clinton is being criticized by their favorite news coverage, CNN. Clinton has decided to relive his glory days by attacking Gingrich during the GOP contender's campaign. To be honest, Clinton is just a figment of the past and should stop trying to be involved in the government by making useless comments and speeches which only distract from the campaign. What he says makes little to no difference, and is somewhat a waste of time. Yes, he was a great President who did great things for the country, but his time is over; he has to allow others in the spotlight, including his wife. Recently, he stated that Gingrich shouldn't be the one taking the credit for the budget balancing and the 11 million new jobs during the Clinton administration. Gingrich should be able to say whatever he wants to during his campaign. Gingrich was the speaker, and must have had a significant part in it. There IS a balance of power, and Clinton hasn't seen that yet. His comments on how elections are held and advice to the GOP candidates are obvious and kind of boring. Honestly, Clinton will have little to no effect on Gingrich's campaign unless he comes up with more information and stops campaigning himself.
LOOK
LOOK
Gingrich and Gay Men: Do Not Mix
Gingrich has been dissuading the gay public with his campaigning. Recently this week, Gingrich told a homosexual college professor to vote for his competition, Barack Obama, without even trying to convince the professor to agree with his other issues. He stated that "If [homosexuality] is the most important issue to you, then you should be for Obama." And yet, Gingrich is most definitely against legalization of gay marriage, and signed a pledge defining marriage between a man and a woman.
Why do Americans make such a fuss about religion within our politics? Aren't our church and state separated? It is true that America is the most developed country with the highest percentage of religious citizens, but that has no place within our government. We should be focusing on issues such as our economy. Gingrich may have the right idea in his one clipped quote, but his actions speak otherwise. His religious views are getting in the way of politics.
Gingrich will not get voter support with these ridiculous rouses. If he really did care more about job creation and national security, he would not be wasting his time signing pledges with the National Organization for Marriage. He should leave issues like those up to the states, not his political campaign.
The only issue with the article is that it doesn't state other activities he's been doing recently to progress the economy, job creation, and other national issues. Instead, it only focuses on the social.
View it hurr
Why do Americans make such a fuss about religion within our politics? Aren't our church and state separated? It is true that America is the most developed country with the highest percentage of religious citizens, but that has no place within our government. We should be focusing on issues such as our economy. Gingrich may have the right idea in his one clipped quote, but his actions speak otherwise. His religious views are getting in the way of politics.
Gingrich will not get voter support with these ridiculous rouses. If he really did care more about job creation and national security, he would not be wasting his time signing pledges with the National Organization for Marriage. He should leave issues like those up to the states, not his political campaign.
The only issue with the article is that it doesn't state other activities he's been doing recently to progress the economy, job creation, and other national issues. Instead, it only focuses on the social.
View it hurr
Friday, December 9, 2011
Is Perry too soft? Arpaio doesn't think so.
Sheriff Arpaio recently endorsed Perry in a live Fox interview with Neil Cavuto this past week, saying that he has switched from supporting Romney to backing Perry due to Perry's tougher illegal immigration laws. It is evident from the interview that Arpaio is "America's Toughest Sheriff," but I'm still confused as to why he thinks Perry will succeed in weeding out illegals when Perry is just too soft! I also asked why just illegal immigration laws should be stricter. America should also focus on making it easier to become a legal immigrant. These people will still come. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Arpaio screams a sense of false hope: "In one year in office as President, he will secure that border. I believe him." I don't! How is it possible for one man to accomplish that much that quickly? He would need the House of Representatives and the Senate backing him in order to achieve that, and Perry has a less than perfect social standing with many Democrats.
Perry is too soft, and he isn't touch on crimes, drugs, or immigration. He spends all of his time trying to change religion in schools and gays in the military. Those will be the policies he changes, NOT immigration laws.
This support will be great for Perry, but I don't think it will change anything. People will see past this support and see that Perry is just a religious fanatic who wants to convert everyone.
The only things I enjoyed during this broadcast were that Cavuto was surprisingly unbiased, even though Fox News is infamous for its right-wing slant, and the fact that Arpaio knew Texas was the second-largest state in the country, not the first. At least he has some intelligence!
Watch some of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaEFJMhfG_Q&feature=relmfu
Arpaio screams a sense of false hope: "In one year in office as President, he will secure that border. I believe him." I don't! How is it possible for one man to accomplish that much that quickly? He would need the House of Representatives and the Senate backing him in order to achieve that, and Perry has a less than perfect social standing with many Democrats.
Perry is too soft, and he isn't touch on crimes, drugs, or immigration. He spends all of his time trying to change religion in schools and gays in the military. Those will be the policies he changes, NOT immigration laws.
This support will be great for Perry, but I don't think it will change anything. People will see past this support and see that Perry is just a religious fanatic who wants to convert everyone.
The only things I enjoyed during this broadcast were that Cavuto was surprisingly unbiased, even though Fox News is infamous for its right-wing slant, and the fact that Arpaio knew Texas was the second-largest state in the country, not the first. At least he has some intelligence!
Watch some of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaEFJMhfG_Q&feature=relmfu
Gays, Guns & God
I'm very excited that Timothy Egan, and Op-Ed writer for the New York Times, wrote this piece in the first place. Everything stated, I've never even realized, but makes me want to preach.
How CAN Americans praise the sanctity of marriage when our most adored celebrities (ie. Britney and Kim Kardash) stay married for less than a month? Or when politicians continually cheat on their wives and are involved in numerous sex scandals? The answer? We really just can't.
This issue doesn't truly belong in politics. One's private life is not a public policy.
I like that Egan stresses that the gay issue won't be an issue in this new presidential election. We are in a new decade, and hopefully gays won't be seen as a novel problem in any debate.
I was interested and somewhat surprised to learn that Bush received several of his votes due to moral compatibility with his voters. "When George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, political sophisticates were stunned by a national exit poll in which 22 percent of voters picked 'moral issues' from a list of things that mattered most — more than any other concern. This was heralded as the high-water triumph for evangelicals."
This depresses me. One should not be able to simply wave a Bible around and get 20% more votes. The American public should be more educated than that.
And this year, they will be.
Changes in public policy? The gay marriage issue should be a less debatable issue this year. We already have several states that legalize gay marriage, and I think the others will follow suit soon.
Politicians should be focusing on bettering the country, not attacking a part of the people. Gays really do deserve equal rights.
I agree with all Egan has said, although note the strong Democratic bias.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/goodbye-to-gays-guns-god/?ref=opinion
How CAN Americans praise the sanctity of marriage when our most adored celebrities (ie. Britney and Kim Kardash) stay married for less than a month? Or when politicians continually cheat on their wives and are involved in numerous sex scandals? The answer? We really just can't.
This issue doesn't truly belong in politics. One's private life is not a public policy.
I like that Egan stresses that the gay issue won't be an issue in this new presidential election. We are in a new decade, and hopefully gays won't be seen as a novel problem in any debate.
I was interested and somewhat surprised to learn that Bush received several of his votes due to moral compatibility with his voters. "When George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, political sophisticates were stunned by a national exit poll in which 22 percent of voters picked 'moral issues' from a list of things that mattered most — more than any other concern. This was heralded as the high-water triumph for evangelicals."
This depresses me. One should not be able to simply wave a Bible around and get 20% more votes. The American public should be more educated than that.
And this year, they will be.
Changes in public policy? The gay marriage issue should be a less debatable issue this year. We already have several states that legalize gay marriage, and I think the others will follow suit soon.
Politicians should be focusing on bettering the country, not attacking a part of the people. Gays really do deserve equal rights.
I agree with all Egan has said, although note the strong Democratic bias.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/goodbye-to-gays-guns-god/?ref=opinion
The Great Healthcare Debate
Bradley and Taylor from the New York Times recently cowrote an article on fixing health care, and the fact that America does not spend enough money on health and social services. The facts can speak for themselves: outcomes in life expectancy and infant mortality in America are less than perfect, and several unindustrialized countries fare better in both regions. Although I agree with several of their main points, I can't help but make the argument that money isn't everything. If we put more money into these programs, that doesn't mean the money will go to help specific individuals. It may just get lost in the pyramid of authority.
I agree with their idea on social services being the key to better health. Those who do need medical help usual are in these social programs, but "our current social programs are mostly opt-in, leaving holes for the undocumented, uneducated and unemployed to slip through cracks and become acutely ill."
Their points on the relations of health and social care are extremely interesting and surprisingly accurate. I didn't realize how closely they are linked. I also love their last line: "Before we spend even more money, we should consider allocating it differently." I completely agree. During these economic hardships, citizens would go wild if they found out the country was asking for even more money. Although at some points they stress the need for a more powerful government that would restrict the free market, Bradley and Taylor make an extremely convincing argument. It's obvious they have a more democratic bias, but they have several facts and allusions to other European governments to back up their slanted statements.
You can read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/to-fix-health-care-help-the-poor.html?_r=1&ref=politics
I agree with their idea on social services being the key to better health. Those who do need medical help usual are in these social programs, but "our current social programs are mostly opt-in, leaving holes for the undocumented, uneducated and unemployed to slip through cracks and become acutely ill."
Their points on the relations of health and social care are extremely interesting and surprisingly accurate. I didn't realize how closely they are linked. I also love their last line: "Before we spend even more money, we should consider allocating it differently." I completely agree. During these economic hardships, citizens would go wild if they found out the country was asking for even more money. Although at some points they stress the need for a more powerful government that would restrict the free market, Bradley and Taylor make an extremely convincing argument. It's obvious they have a more democratic bias, but they have several facts and allusions to other European governments to back up their slanted statements.
You can read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/to-fix-health-care-help-the-poor.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)